ReviewVaccines2025
Post-Vaccination Anaphylaxis in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in the WHO European Region and in North America (United States and Canada): A Systematic Review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Improving Vaccine Coverage Among Older Adults and High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Hospital-Based Strategies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesVaccines have been recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. However, vaccine-associated anaphylaxis, although rare, is a serious adverse reaction. The incidence of anaphylaxis related to non-COVID-19 vaccines in adults remains underreported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the incidence of post-vaccination anaphylaxis across various vaccines in adults.
methodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science identified studies on anaphylaxis following vaccination in adults (≥18 years), excluding COVID-19 vaccines. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO in advance (ID CRD42024566928). Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to pool data and estimate the logit proportion, with the logit-transformed proportion serving as the effect size, thereby allowing for the calculation of event rates.
resultsA total of 37 studies were included in the systematic review, with 22 studies contributing to the meta-analysis, representing a combined population of 206,855,261 participants. Most studies focused on influenza vaccines (
conclusionsAnaphylaxis following vaccination in adults is rare but varies by vaccine type. Strengthened monitoring and preparedness are essential, especially in non-medical settings, to ensure a rapid response to anaphylaxis and maintain public confidence in vaccination programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.